a. occupation of public land which is the issue in the instant case.

b. The court, in passing upon the validity of the aforesaid sections, was apparently guided by the
rule that where part of a statute is void as repugnant to the organic law, while another part is
valid, the valid portion, if separable from the invalid may stand and be enforced.
2. The non-inclusion of the squatters mentioned in the Ordinance in question as party defendants in this case
cannot defeat the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance of Baguio.
a. Section 2 of Rule 64 of the Rules of Court merely states that “no declaration shall, except for or as
otherwise provided in these rules, prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the action."
b. The reason for requiring joinder of all necessary parties is to allow final and pacifying function of the
declaratory relief. In this case, the squatters are not necessary parties and would be bound regardless
because the question involved is the Municipal Council’s power to enact the Ordinances in question.
i. Degala v. Reyes is inapplicable despite being cited in the decision under review. The Degala
case involves the validity of the trust towards the Roman Catholic Church created in the will of
the testator, the former of which was not brought in as party. The Court refused to make any
declaratory judgment on ground of jurisdictional defect, as the Roman Catholic not being
bound by such would make the declaration a mere exercise in futility.
ii. In this case a declaration on the nullity of the ordinance, would give the squatters no right
which they are entitled to protect. The party most interested to sustain and defend the
legality of the Ordinance is the City Council that passed it and together with the City Mayor.
c. If at all, the case may be dismissed not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but for the reason stated
in Section 5 of the same Rule. "The Court may refuse to exercise the power to declare rights and to
construe instruments in any case where a decision would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy
which gave rise to the action, or any case where the declaration or construction is not necessary and
proper at the time under all circumstances."
3. The Ordinance in question is a patent nullity.
a. Squatting is unlawful as illegal entry is morally incompatible with law and order. It is a widespread vice
and blight, and tolerance or protection emboldens squatters’ pernicious acts (City of Manila v. Garcia).
b. No disposition of public land could be made by the City of Baguio without prior legislative authority.
The state possesses plenary power in law to determine recipients of public domain, and the Director
of Lands has exclusive control, administrations, disposition and alienation of public land.
c. The explanatory note discussing humane treatment for squatters cannot be a justification as the government
has enunciated a militant policy against squatters.
i. In social re-adjustment policies, the government could not lay aside moral standards, and
favor usurpers, squatters, and intruders, unmindful of the lawful and unlawful origin and
character of their occupancy. Such policy would perpetuate conflicts instead of attaining their
just solution. (Astudillo vs. Board of Directors of PHHC , quoting Bernardo vs. Bernardo).
ii. Letter of Instruction No. 19 dated October 2, 1972 orders city and district engineers 'to
remove all illegal constructions including buildings ... and those built without permits on
public or private property' and providing for the relocation of squatters.